al, critical thing. And they know it wasn't a mistake. That's important. They know it wasn't a mistake. They know they were lied to for years by their trusted media. Will the Gell-Mann approach kick in and make all the Democrats think, "Well that was just that one story"? Because that's what Gell-Mann amnesia would be. It's like, "Well okay I guess I got that one thing wrong but this other story is real." Will they? Or will it cure them? Will it cure them like Gell-Mann cured himself, which is noticing the pattern? "Wait. Whenever I can know for sure what the truth is, such as watching the debate, then you can know for sure what the truth was. It doesn't match what I was told." How often is that going to happen? How often am I going to notice that I can see with my own eyes that what they're telling me is not real? How many times do you notice that before you realize that's the normal? It's not the exception. That's everything all the time. If it's important there's somebody with money who's going to make you lie about it. Might be your boss, might be your advertisers. But if it's important somebody with a lot of money is going to force you to lie about it. That's the reality that we live in.

And tomorrow they're going to wake up and they're going to see their story about 97% of scientists saying climate change is real and they're going to say that's probably true. Look at all those people on the same side. Gell-Mann amnesia in the biggest possible sense.

Well let's see. Molly Hemingway is pointing us at Peter Baker who's the New York Times chief White House correspondent. And Peter Baker said this. He said one party has a candidate who is really old and showing it. The other has a candidate who is a convicted felon, an adjudicated sexual abuser, a business fraudster, and self-described aspiring dictator for a day and also really old. One party wants to replace its candidate. The other does not.

Molly Hemingway had this comment about that comment. She said I wonder what the New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker's personal politics are. There's simply no way you can tell from his reporting or tweeting. Oh wait, it's all propaganda all the way down. Is it? Well let's look at his claims. Do you think he would make any claims that are obviously a lie? Like just obviously? Well let's see. He said one is a convicted felon. That's not true because until the judge certifies it it's not a convicted felon. And given recent changes it's unlikely or at least it's a coin flip whether it will ever happen. He's not a convicted felon. And you're the chief White House correspondent for the paper of record just said he was. And yet it's factually easily determined to be not true. You don't have to be a news person or a scientist. Just Google it. Is he technically a felon or does something else have to happen before he would be? You can find out for yourself. It's just not true.

How about he's an adjudicated sexual abuser? Why would you say